- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:22:16 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Toby Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On 12 Aug 2010, at 14:31, Ivan Herman wrote: > I just want to understand this: did you propose to change the term > mapping approach to something like: > > <blabla> rdfa:term "something" > > whereas leaving the prefix mapping the way it is now in the > document? This was not really clear. I am very concerned about term mappings, because I believe that the deployment story for RDFa 1.1 and onwards will be mostly about profiles with term mappings. I see prefix mappings as less critical, their main use IMO is to keep the old RDF-heads happy. I don't really have an opinion on their modelling. My intuition is that they are syntactical, while term mappings say something meaningful about classes and properties. I found Toby's examples below compelling. Best, Richard > > Ivan > >> Best, >> Richard >> >> >> On 12 Aug 2010, at 10:24, Toby Inkster wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 07:40:04 +0200 >>> Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>>> This was discussed several times on the mailing list and I fully >>>> understand your issues. Here is the reason I was in favour of the >>>> current setup, but I am absolutely open to discussion because, >>>> well, >>>> it does complicate processing (speaking as an implementer). >>> >>> FWIW, I agree with your reasoning for the current vocab. Prefix >>> and term >>> mappings are semantically a relationship between two strings. >>> >>> Imagine this: >>> >>> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> rdfa:prefix "foaf" . >>> >>> Now, the following is also true (probably): >>> >>> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> >>> a owl:Ontology ; >>> owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/resource/FOAF_(software)> . >>> >>> Thus it follows that: >>> >>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/FOAF_(software)> >>> rdfa:prefix "foaf" . >>> >>> Thus an RDFa processor could expand 'foaf:name' to: >>> >>> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/FOAF_(software)name> >>> >>> Which we wouldn't want to happen. >>> >>> In RDF terms, when we're defining prefixes and terms we're not >>> describing the underlying resources - we're just talking about >>> the xsd:strings. We're not even talking about xsd:anyURIs, because >>> say, "htt" is a valid expansion for a prefix, which might be used >>> as follows: >>> >>> prefix="h: htt" >>> property="h:p://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" >>> >>> So I'd recommend keeping the current pattern, though I think the >>> range of rdfa:uri should be changed to xsd:string for the above >>> reason. >>> >>> Another argument against switching to >>> >>> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> rdfa:prefix "foaf" . >>> >>> would be the fact that you'd lose the owl:FunctionalProperty-ness of >>> rdfa:prefix and rdfa:term. >>> >>> -- >>> Toby A Inkster >>> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> >>> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> >>> >>> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > > -- Linked Data Technologist • Linked Data Research Centre Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), NUI Galway, Ireland http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ skype:richard.cyganiak tel:+353-91-49-5711
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 14:22:52 UTC